******************************NOTES----------------All scores based on TR reviews.Prices are from Newegg as of Nov 2, 2009----------------------------Q: How is the total score calculated?A: Non-Gaming = 76%, Gaming = 24%

Q: Why do some CPUs only have a "peformance" score? A: The performance score for CPUs from older reviews do not have a gaming score or non-gaming score because of non-inclusion of games for older reviews in the chart. However, because of the way I calculated old scores using base from the newer reviews, gaming scores from the current reviews impact the older CPU scores.

Q: How come processor X isn't in the list? A: I'm lazy.

Q: How come you only included 13 of the benchmarks for the non-gaming portion instead of all of them?A: I'm lazy.

Q: How come the older cpus aren't there? This makes comparing my current cpu to the newer ones impossible!!! *%$#D##@!A: I'll try to add more cpus in the future.. eventually.

Q: How come AMD looks to have the performance / price win across the board?A: They have lower priced cpus.

Gee, should they also color code it and add ice-cream cones and stickers to it as well. Read the reviews properly and read the comments then make a decision based on the whole article. What the above poster did was summarize the benchmarks and when you create benchmark indexes a lot of information and subtleties about why you would buy one system over the other is lost.

Gee, should they also color code it and add ice-cream cones and stickers to it as well. Read the reviews properly and read the comments then make a decision based on the whole article. What the above poster did was summarize the benchmarks and when you create benchmark indexes a lot of information and subtleties about why you would buy one system over the other is lost.

Ok jerk. There are ALL sorts of ridiculous requests for more this-and-that in the comment threads at the end of EVERY single review. Some calling Geoff "lazy" for not using different RAID cards in addition to etc etc etc. I have the AUDACITY to suggest maybe a quick 3-game benchmark or even a simpler "performance index" and I'm asking too much.

Gee, should they also color code it and add ice-cream cones and stickers to it as well. Read the reviews properly and read the comments then make a decision based on the whole article. What the above poster did was summarize the benchmarks and when you create benchmark indexes a lot of information and subtleties about why you would buy one system over the other is lost.

not really sure what you're trying to say.

all the post above does is summarize the information in a easier to read at a glance chart. .. obviously the review contains many more benchmarks though.. so it doesnt tell nearly the whole story. If I added all the benchies to the chart then it'd be more meaningful.however, there isnt ever going to be any subtlety that will make the Core i7 965 a good buy from a performance / price perspective.

derFunk pointed the word "dumb ****" in the general vicinity of other TR members. I pointed the much, much tamer word "jerk" at ONE tr member. Too much caffiene?? YOU DECIDE!!

And yeah, obviously this chart OP suggested leaves out a lot of information, but I really like the direction he's heading and his head is in the right place. (er, in that he wants to make a performance/price ratio, not so much the pro-AMD bias).

derFunk pointed the word "dumb ****" in the general vicinity of other TR members. I pointed the much, much tamer word "jerk" at ONE tr member. Too much caffiene?? YOU DECIDE!!

And yeah, obviously this chart OP suggested leaves out a lot of information, but I really like the direction he's heading and his head is in the right place. (er, in that he wants to make a performance/price ratio, not so much the pro-AMD bias).

haha It does look like I'm a bit biased in the chart, but that wasnt on purpose.. I just included the top cpus from intel & amd and a few lower ones for base.I'll add a few more. intel would look more competive if the E8400 was in the review... or they dropped their Core i7 prices in half

Having seen the last price/performance guide for CPUs, I think that it's always the cheapest CPU that wins. I'd bet that if they added AMD 4200 X2 then it would be an even better "value" than the 6400 x2.

The way to rationalize more expensive CPUs to yourself is to count the cost of the motherboard and RAM. This may push the optimum to the middle of the processor series, but the bleeding edge top-end is never a good value.

question for everyone: Ok to change the overall performance to (gaming + (non *2))/3 ? ie.. non gaming is worth twice as much as gaming. Reason I'm thinking of changing is that the gaming scores are calculated from 4 games.. while the non-gaming scores come from 13 benchies. So, one game could have a profound impact on the final score.

Another reason I have thought about changing is I started looking back at the older CPUs to add them into the list.. and the gaming scores for some of the old reviews became very problematic. Ie.. some of the slower clocked cpus performed better in some of the "games" in one of the reviews throwing the total number off .. and since the older reviews do not use the same games I don't want the crazy numbers throwing off the newer review numbers.

I could also leave the newer cpus that were all in the same review (everything up there now) the current way and just change the formula for the older cpus as I add them in.

What you are doing makes no sense what so ever, if you want a gaming index there are several out there. The only reason to do detailed benchmarks is to make informed decisions, and you are taking all that work and putting right back in the pot mixing it up and coming up with a score.

What you are doing makes no sense what so ever, if you want a gaming index there are several out there. The only reason to do detailed benchmarks is to make informed decisions, and you are taking all that work and putting right back in the pot mixing it up and coming up with a score.

He is taking the numbers in the TR reviews and running through a defined set of rules to reach upon a performance rating to combine with the price to reach a value rating. Care to explain exactly what part of that is "mixing it up and coming up with a score", or are you just here for the put-down?

There is a fixed amount of intelligence on the planet, and the population keeps growing :(

The way to rationalize more expensive CPUs to yourself is to count the cost of the motherboard and RAM. This may push the optimum to the middle of the processor series, but the bleeding edge top-end is never a good value.

Yeearrrghh! My 965 was a GREAT value....errrr......if you inherited the money...or found it......

LOL

This chart should have had the value champ E8400 3GHz, 6MB cache 45nm Intel dynamo that runs on superior socket 775 mobos and just about every sane person on the planet buys instead of much slower, much dated X2 6400+s.

Love the AMD and have a Phenom 9850BE in my secondary rig to support'em- but you are castrating a gaming rig putting an AMD CPU in it. Just the way it is...

NVIDIA Focus GroupNVIDIA Focus Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the Members.

I'm not sure what you're looking at because it seems to me like the X3 710 beats it hands down; you could even go a little higher and say the X4 920 wins the title. It's pretty interesting to see the E8400 and Q6600 so close because of all the heated debates that have gone on between those two, especially when they were priced closer together.